Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giles Coren
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 17:45, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
non-notable. Mikkalai 02:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- A columnist for The Times of London is supremely notable. And before you say he's just or mainly notable as a food and restaurant critic, the first page of ten Usenet hits for the same Giles Coren draws from soc.culture.welsh, uk.rec.models.rail, alt.books.george-orwell, sci.military.naval, comp.sys.acorn.misc, soc.culture.hmong, soc.culture.lebanon, alt.support.childfree and rec.music.artists.springsteen (twice!), all in legitimate posts referencing or discussing something Coren has written about, mostly unrelated to food. Strong keep. Samaritan 02:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Columnists of major daily newspapers are inherently notable and encyclopedic. It doesn'tmatter if he writes about politics or macrame.--Centauri 03:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons stated above. 23skidoo 04:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I've categorised it.Philip 14:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. A regular columnist for The Times is notable in my view. --JuntungWu 16:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Conditional Delete. It's certainly possible that Giles Coren is notable, but there's not enough in the article to show me that he is. Prove it to me (in the article, not in the VfD comments). Samaritan's comment above tells me more about the types of things he writes about than the article does. Right now we've got a stub that needs expanding. How long has he been with the Times? Is he politically conservative or liberal? Are his political views in line with, or in opposition to, the editorial opinion of the paper he writes for? How often do his columns appear? Some samples of his writing? Has he won any awards? Has he done anything else other than write for the Times? Is he a London native? These are the sorts of things which would make the article interesting. --RoySmith 19:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)- What you are saying that it should be deleted for being a stub, and that is a totally unacceptable proposition. Philip 10:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No, that's not quite what I'm saying (although, I'll admit my statement above is a bit misleading in that regard). What I'm saying is that there's no evidence (or at least wasn't any when I made my original vote) that the guy was notable. Certainly the paper he works for is notable, but I don't believe in notability by association. Surely there are non-notable people on staff at The Times, just like there are at The New York Times, the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, BBC, etc. All of these are notable news organizations, but that doesn't make everybody who works for them notable. What I was really saying is that it's not up to me, as a reviewer, to do the research to prove that the subject is notable. The efforts that went into making notability arguments on the VfD are lost once the vote is over; that same effort put into improving the article has lasting value. Anyway, I see that the article has improved enough for me to now change my vote to Keep. Cheers, mate! --RoySmith 15:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Bizarre. I try to make it more comprehensive, more than a 'stub' as asked, add some interest and an example of his humour, then someone removes it again! I give up! Just delete it, unless someone else wants to write something.
- No, that's not quite what I'm saying (although, I'll admit my statement above is a bit misleading in that regard). What I'm saying is that there's no evidence (or at least wasn't any when I made my original vote) that the guy was notable. Certainly the paper he works for is notable, but I don't believe in notability by association. Surely there are non-notable people on staff at The Times, just like there are at The New York Times, the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, BBC, etc. All of these are notable news organizations, but that doesn't make everybody who works for them notable. What I was really saying is that it's not up to me, as a reviewer, to do the research to prove that the subject is notable. The efforts that went into making notability arguments on the VfD are lost once the vote is over; that same effort put into improving the article has lasting value. Anyway, I see that the article has improved enough for me to now change my vote to Keep. Cheers, mate! --RoySmith 15:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- What you are saying that it should be deleted for being a stub, and that is a totally unacceptable proposition. Philip 10:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- keep, Its a valid stub with a large potential. Thryduulf 23:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, Last time i checked The Times was a pretty big newspaper, its just a stub, i am sure people will add on to it over the years. bakuzjw (aka 578) 23:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I wrote this (admittedly somewhat daft) brief article because I wanted a tiny recognition for Giles Coren as both a writer of harsh wit and sheer oddity. For the most part, writers for The Times tend to be very conservative (William Rees-Mogg) or very liberal (Libby Purves). Mr. Coren stands out for his sheer 'irrelevance' and nihilistically dark humour. It would be a tad disappointing to delete this entry. I don't follow the minimalist arguments,- surely it's best to have as much knowledge as possible? Then again, I don't pay for Wikipedia's bandwidth etc. I suppose the subject is not particularly important compared with major characters in past and present society. Then again, I note nine noted users read it in a matter of days....
- One of Wikipedia's most important policies is that you don't have to pay to contribute, any more than you do to read it. Philip 10:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The World Is A Bigger Place Than The US - David Gerard 23:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I'm amazed that there are people in the civilised English-speaking world that haven't heard of him! Mind you, I could understand Americans not knowing him ;) Grutness|hello?
05:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I've never heard of him either - and I'm not American. But, on the basis of all the above, I should think a regular contribtuor to one of the World's most famous newspapers is a name to be kept. --Marcus22 13:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.